Value of Including the Children’s Experience for Improving Their Rights During Hospitalization: Protocol for the VoiCEs Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Users' feedback is a key asset for organizations that want to improve their services. Studying how organizations are enabling their users to participate in evaluation activities is particularly important, especially when there are vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and the services to be evaluated can be life-changing. This is the case in the coassessment by pediatric patients experiencing hospital stay. The international literature reports a few attempts and several challenges in systematically collecting and using the pediatric patient experience with respect to hospitalization, to undertake quality improvement actions. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the research protocol of a European project intended to develop and implement a systematic pediatric patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) observatory that will be shared by 4 European children's hospitals in Finland, Italy, Latvia, and the Netherlands. METHODS: The VoiCEs (Value of including the Children's Experience for improving their rightS during hospitalization) project uses a participatory action research approach, based on a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods. It consists of 6 different phases, including a literature review, an analysis of the previous experiences of pediatric PREMs reported by project partners, a Delphi process, a cycle of focus groups or in-depth interviews with children and their caregivers, a series of workshops with interactive working groups, and a cross-sectional observational survey. The project guarantees the direct participation of children and adolescents in the development and implementation phases of the project. RESULTS: The expected results are (1) a deeper knowledge of published methodologies and tools on collecting and reporting pediatric patients' voice; (2) lessons learnt from the analysis of previous experiences of pediatric PREMs; a consensus reached through a participatory process (3) among experts, (4) pediatric patients and caregivers about a standard set of measures for the evaluation of hospitalization by patients; (5) the implementation of a European observatory on pediatric PREMs; and (6) the collection and comparative reporting of the pediatric patients' voice. In addition, the project is aimed at studying and proposing innovative methodologies and tools for capturing the pediatric patients' feedback directly, avoiding the intermediation of parents/guardians. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last decade, the collection and use of PREMs have gained importance as a research field. Children and adolescents' perspectives have also been increasingly taken into consideration. However, to date, there are limited experiences regarding the continuous and systematic collection and use of pediatric PREMs data for implementing timely improvement actions. In this perspective, the VoiCEs project provides room for innovation, by contributing to the creation of an international, continuous, and systematic pediatric PREMs observatory that can be joined by other children's hospitals or hospitals with pediatric patients, and foresees the return of usable and actionable data in benchmarking. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/42804.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.159 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".